Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Discusses Heightened Pleading Standard Under Rule 9(b)

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

March 14, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed the heightened pleading standard for claims of fraud under Rule 9(b) in an auction rate securities case. 

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

William Beaumont Hospital System vs. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, No. 16-1135 (6th Cir., 1/26/17) 

Under Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, claims of fraud must state with particularity: (1) the statements Plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2) the identity of the speaker, (3) where and when the statements were made, and (4) an explanation of why the statements were fraudulent. 

In 2006, the parties entered into bond purchase agreements and an interest rate swap agreement for Plaintiff's auction rate securities ("ARS") issuance, which Defendants would underwrite and auction. In late 2007, the ARS market collapsed. Defendants initially submitted covering bids to support Plaintiff's ARS sales, but stopped doing so in early 2008. To avoid a failed auction, Plaintiff was forced to pay investors interest rates higher than anticipated. In 2014, Plaintiff sued, alleging that Defendants omitted material information about the ARS market, their cover bidding process and the availability of different interest rate structures, and failed to warn Plaintiff about the deteriorating ARS market in 2007 and 2008. The district court dismissed, finding Michigan's six-year statute of limitations on Plaintiff's common law fraud claims had run, and Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under FRCP 12(b)(6) (see SLA 2016-06).

Conducting a de novo review, the Sixth Circuit affirms the 12(b)(6) dismissal, because Plaintiff failed to meet FRCP 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards. First, the Court rejects Plaintiff's claim that Defendants failed to disclose their ability to stop making cover bids, pointing out that Plaintiff acknowledged Defendants' right to do so in its 2006 ARS Official Statement. Second, the Court finds Plaintiff's allegations regarding alternative interest rate structures too vague because Plaintiff failed to describe the time, place, speaker and content of the alleged fraud. Plaintiff's failure to warn claims, the Court concludes, fail for the same reason and because the volatility in the ARS market was "widely-known" in the financial markets. Finally, Defendants had no duty to provide ongoing disclosures about the ARS market, and without that duty, there can be no fraud by omission. Because the Court affirms on 12(b)(6) grounds, it declines to address the statute of limitations issues. 

Goldman Sachs was also a Defendant.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.